Master 2 Modes d’Action Politique Comparés 7th of january 2005

COURSE POINT : The Paradigm of Segmentarity

Bourgeon Bénédicte, Reitzer Elise

We’d like to present you a paradigm we’ve studied in different lectures linked with the arab and muslim world. It’s a really useful paradigm for the study of the fundamental political form : the State. For instance, this paradigm enables to analyze states which can’t be defined as Nation-States. This paradigm is the paradigm of segmentarity.

First of all, we will present you its origin. This paradigm is to be situated in the field of political anthropology. Political anthropology emerged with the studies of Georges Balandie who, in 1967, wrote : “Anthropologie Politique”. More recently, Abeles and Jeudy followed this trend and publishied in 1997: “Anthropolpgie du Politique”. This field of study focuses on the analysis of the internal functionning of society, taking into account economy, culture, behaviours patterns..., in order to explain its political form.

This new way of thinking was translated in the area of the arab and muslim world by Clifford Geertz, wellknown for his culturalist commitment and for his developements on the importance of interpretation. At this point of the explanation, we must mention the concept of ‛açabiyyah that helps to define the solidarity group. The latter was presented and developped by Ibn Khaldûn, already the father of arab sociology in the fourteenth century.

What is segmentarity ?

Segmentarity can be defined as the division of society into different groups. This division differs from a division based on social or economic classes. It doesn’t depend on the economic structure, that is to say, the ownership of the means of production.

The division of society into different groups is based on primary solidarities. That means, at a first level, blood ties or family relationships. These groups may be the family, the clan or the tribe, which are named the ‛açabiyyah of hamula.

The characteristic of this social system is that it has no hierarchy. It is a horizontal structure of social relations. Thus, it is really different from societies organized into classes which have a vertical structure.

The paradigm helps to highlight the political functionning of arab and muslim societies, because generally the system is defined as a traditional society in a modern state. In fact, there’s a heritage from social tradition and, at the same time, an integration into the new political system. That is why we can observe a recomposition of the ‛açabiyyah in such societies.

There’s a recomposition because, for instance, with the construction of the state and the phenomenon of territorialization, the basis of solidarity has changed: it is no longer blood ties or family relationships, but the geographical proximity which structures social relations. Thus, a phenomenon of localism can be observed.

As Olivier Roy explains, there’s a state and relations between the state and the recomposed ‛açabiyyah. But, it is clear that this would never lead to a “national etnic state”, according to him.

However, after this presentation of the pardigm, a warning must be issued, with reference to the use of this paradigm. In fact, it may lead to an essentialist and orientalist drift. This means considering that the societies studied are just segmentary societies. Another drift is also possible: the structuralist drift.

Realizing these possible drifts, in the 70’s and the 80’s, the paradigm of segmentarity was deconstructed and seen much more as an ideology in the discourses and behaviours of social actors. That means that the social actors reproduce this model when acting but that doesn’t mean that their behaviours are only informed by this model. Social reality is more complex and can be analyzed through other systems of functionning. Clientelism is a good example of this type of system.

Conclusion:

To conclude, we wanted to open the debate with a current event: the election in Palestine of the president of the National Authority. In 1996, concerning the past elections, Jean-François Legrain explains that the voters and candidates behaviours can’t be considered to be a “modern political behaviour”. Modernity, for Jean-François Legrain, means the realization of the Nation-State thanks to political parties, representative organizations wich defend the national interest and not the interest of a group. For this author, this situation is the consequence of the segmentary structure of palestinian society.

Knowing that Mahmoud Abbas, the Fath candidate, was predicted by pools to be the winner, do you think that this is the confirmation of the efficiency of Jean-François Legrain conclusion’s concerning the palestinian society?